What is it that strikes one first, when one talks about friendship? The idea that friendship is not determined by birth. We ‘choose’ it. Sociologically, it is something we ‘achieve’, not inherit as part of our ‘ascribed’ status. The story, however, could be more complex.
Let us try to understand what it means. Referring to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, we can define friendship as not a kin term, although it does imply some type of reciprocity and obligation between otherwise unrelated individuals. This, however, varies in terms of situation and context (Scott & Marshal, 2005).[i] Thus, reciprocity is one of the important aspects of friendship but is not adequate to understand what makes it a social relationship.
This brings us to the question of how do we account for the obligation which friendship involves? Is it only on individual traits that friendships are formed? Do our ‘social’ backgrounds matter? The dominant nature of friendship research has tended to focus on friendships as a phenomenon affecting individuals. Friendships were considered as personal relationships formed at the level of a dyad. This made it difficult to connect it with major sociological themes such as power, stratification systems, authority, etc. which focuses on structural arrangements (Eve, 2002).[ii] It was also because of this reason that they were largely studied within the field of psychology. The focus was to look at an individual’s dispositions, choices, and interests in deciding with whom one becomes a friend.
Consequently, in sociology, friendship acquired the status of a residual category which was seen primarily in relation to kinship. It is well known that both in social anthropology and sociology (particularly of the non-western academia) kinship studies constitute one of the most crucial units of analysis. It is even argued that preoccupation with kinship[iii] specifically by anthropologists in investigating the social structures of ‘other’ societies has eclipsed separate studies on friendship (Killick & Desai, 2010).[iv] Indeed, most of the friendship studies have taken place within the matrix of kinship. It is not to suggest that kinship and friendship are disparate entities as there are overlaps between the two. But to develop a sociology of friendship, it is important to look at friendship as it exists, without looking at it from the lens of a pre-given social concept or category.
At this juncture, let us return to our question about the voluntary nature of friendship. We usually talk about matching of ‘wavelengths’, or an instant ‘click’ while recalling how we become friends with someone. This is indeed true and friendship does seem like free-floating devoid of the structural location where one can become who he or she is, expressing one’s true ‘self’. However, this expression of self is contingent on the social and economic locations of the individuals.
It is because the underlying basis of most friendships is ‘equality of exchange’ i.e.; what one does now is reciprocated in some equivalent form by the other (Adams & Allan, 1988).[v] Friendships are thus, socially constructed, developed, and endured by individuals in specific historical contexts, which have an ‘influencing effect in structuring the relationship’ (Adams & Allan, 1988). With whom we become friends is rarely just a personal matter. Rather, individual friendships are susceptible to being influenced by personal networks (Allan, 2011).[vi]
Further, this reciprocity that exists in modern friendships is usually seen as affective without any interest involved. There is a very common sense understanding that friendship is not to be ‘used’, rather it is ought to be disinterested (Eve, 2002). However, research on social support would argue that friendships can be understood within the framework of exchanges of services and friends as resources (Eve, 2002). This can range from providing companionships, emotional support to practical aid. Thus, modern friendships can be both affective/emotional as well as instrumental suggesting that friendships are series of atoms that need to be looked at as particular cases without any predefined, objective norms (Pitt Rivers, 2016)[vii]. It is important therefore to unlock the negotiated specificities of actual friendship. It is not purely a dyadic or individual affair arising out of personal choices of the ego (Eve, 2002). A person defined as a friend is virtually never isolated as a single tie with the ego. There exists a configuration of factors leading to the formation and sustenance of friendships.
In western sociological studies on friendship, class and growing individualism have become prominent vantage points through which it has been studied. This is primarily because of the scale and intensity of modern processes which has majorly affected the social structure of western society. The idea of intimacy too has also changed. A shift has taken place from intimacy based on ascribed relationships to that of individual choices. There has been a growing interest in the value of examining human relationships including non-conventional forms of sexual or love relationships and friendships(Roseneil & Budgeon, 2004)[viii].
While looking at friendship in non-western societies, we have to take into account that the process of modernisation may not follow the same course as the west. For instance, in India, there has been juxtaposition, contestation as well as aligning of the two sets of ideas, that is, ‘modern’ and ‘tradition’. Tradition itself has been recast or reinvented.
In contemporary India, even as we are moving towards an increasingly individualised society, the affinity to one’s social group is still strong. In this context, how then do we look at the idea of equality and reciprocity which friendship entails? Studies on friendships in India has shown that young college going boys sometimes do transcend their caste and class location and challenge the community’s standardised notion of masculinity (Osella & Osella, 1998).[ix] The story is more difficult for women (Dyson, 2010).[x]
In India, traditional social hierarchies such as caste, class, ethnicities apart from regional variations and diverse cultures bear upon friendships. This also brings us to the question of equality expected of friendship that entails reciprocity. In the west, a true friendship would be one where one does not put one person above another. It doesn’t have a leader and a follower, there’s no hint at all of one person being better or worse than the other. It’s perfectly equal. In India, this may play out a bit differently. Stories of friendship in Indian films provide some answers. For friendships are influenced by both ideas of ascriptive ties akin to kinship. And kinship is already ingrained with power and hierarchy. It is within this curious mix that we need to look at friendship in our part of the world. The specificity of the context is crucial to unravel the meaning of friendship.
In the end, I would like to pose some more questions which might prompt us to think about friendship as one of the primary units of social life; not just within a dichotomy between voluntary-involuntary relationships. For instance, in what ways can we look at the role played by social and cultural capital while forming friendships? How do we understand agency and power in a friendship? What could be its possible role in a polarised yet multicultural and democratic society like India? The call for understanding these questions leave tremendous scope for greater reading and research on friendship.
[i] Scott, J., & Marshal, G. (2005). A Dictionary of Sociology. United States: Oxford University Press.
[ii] Eve, M. (2002). Is Friendship a Sociological Topic? European Journal of Sociology, 386-409.
[iii] Robin Fox in his book Kinship and Marraige: An Anthropological Perspective states that kinship in simple terms is defined as the relation between kin i.e.; persons related by real, putative or fictive consanguinity. Consanguinity has been differentiated from affinity that is relatives by blood from relatives by marriage (Fox, R. (1967). Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective. England: Cambridge University Press).
[iv] Killick, E., & Desai, A. (2010). The Ways of Friendship: Anthropological Perspectives.
[v] Adams, R., & Allan, G. (1988). Placing Friendship in Context. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
[vi] Allan, G. (2011). Commentary: Friendships and Emotions. Sociological Research Online.
[vii] Pitt Rivers, J. (2016). The Paradox of Friendships. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 443-452.
[viii] Roseneil, S., & Budgeon, S. (2004). Cultures of Intimacy and Care Beyond the ‘Family’: Personal Life and Social Change in the early 21st Century. Current Sociology, 135-159.
[ix] Osella, C., & Osella, F. (1998). Friendship and Flirting: Micro Politics in Kerela, South India. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 198-206.
[x] Dyson, J. (2010). Friendship in Practice: Girls’ work in Indian Himalayas. Wiley, 482-498.
***
Chandreyee Goswami is an MPhil research scholar in the Centre for Studies in Sociology of Education at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Mumbai.